Can AI be a Teaching Partner? Evaluating ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek across Three Teaching Strategies

How do LLMs decide what to teach next: by reasoning about a learner's knowledge, or by using simpler rules of thumb? We test this in a controlled task previously used to study human teaching strategies. On each trial, a teacher LLM sees a hypothetical learner's trajectory through a reward-annotated directed graph and must reveal a single edge so the learner would choose a better path if they replanned. We run a range of LLMs as simulated teachers and fit their trial-by-trial choices with the same cognitive models used for humans: a Bayes-Optimal teacher that infers which transitions the learner is missing (inverse planning), weaker Bayesian variants, heuristic baselines (e.g., reward based), and non-mentalizing utility models. In a baseline experiment matched to the stimuli presented to human subjects, most LLMs perform well, show little change in strategy over trials, and their graph-by-graph performance is similar to that of humans. Model comparison (BIC) shows that Bayes-Optimal teaching best explains most models' choices. When given a scaffolding intervention, models follow auxiliary inference- or reward-focused prompts, but these scaffolds do not reliably improve later teaching on heuristic-incongruent test graphs and can sometimes reduce performance. Overall, cognitive model fits provide insight into LLM tutoring policies and show that prompt compliance does not guarantee better teaching decisions.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly capable problem solvers, but being able to solve a problem is not the same as being able to teach it. Existing approaches to training LLMs as teachers rely on demonstrations, preference data, or predefined pedagogical criteria that specify what good teaching looks like. However, these signals are often not grounded in individual student learning outcomes, where effective teaching strategies can vary substantially across learners. To address this, we introduce Sherpa, a multi-turn reinforcement learning framework that instantiates multiple student archetypes with LLMs conditioned on distinct learning preferences and trains a teacher model to adapt its instruction by directly maximizing their learning outcomes. Teacher LLMs trained with Sherpa improve instructed students' performance across all archetypes by an average of 20.5 percentage points. Under MathTutorBench's evaluation, Sherpa raises the overall pedagogy score from 52.5% to 79.2%, indicating better teaching responses. Our human studies show that the trained teacher is preferred over the base model in 79.6% of pairwise comparisons. Together, Sherpa trains LLM teachers to adapt to diverse simulated students and become better aligned with human teachers, paving the road towards AI tutors teaching real students.

While various organizations now actively encourage LLM use in classrooms, we still lack rigorous, systematic evaluations of how well these models actually perform the fundamental tasks of language pedagogy. This paper examines whether state-of-the-art LLMs can deliver the kind of corrective feedback and methodological explanations that language learners need. The study tests multiple large language models on their ability to identify, correct, and explain common learner mistakes in English, by systematically varying model parameters to investigate how these technical adjustments affect output quality, pedagogical clarity, and consistency, along with using retrieval-augmented generation to query methodological data. The evaluation employs automated metrics (GLEU, BERTScore) but also human expert judgments to capture dimensions that purely computational measures miss: linguistic nuance, cultural sensitivity, and instructional appropriateness. While models demonstrate impressive surface-level correction abilities, their explanations often lack the terminological and domain knowledge that effective language teaching requires, suggesting that current enthusiasm for AI-assisted language learning may be outpacing our understanding of these systems' actual pedagogical competence.